POSTHUMOUS FAME.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1348, 27 January 1912, Page 9

POSTHUMOUS FAME.

In these days, when the old pastime of expiscating tho real Shakespeare from the plays is being renewed, it is delightful to Tead Mr. Mackail's treatment of the Sonnets. In the essay which he lias devoted to that subject in his "Lcctures on Poetry," Mr. Mackail makes a clean sweep of all tho "identifications." The Dark Lady_ of the later sonnets is 'not to bo identified, with the lady in Sonnets xl. xlii. "W. H.'' remains hidden. Ho is not William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke; he is not Epnry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton; ho is not William -Hall, the printer, nor is he to bo identified with one William Hughes, who is himself unidentified. t Similarly, wo are not to read nutobiography *ro saturated Wffi-peTsoif!rl : fcstin'g','''b'ur

"wo cannot retrace and .reconstitute tho original experience." All of which is admirable and is a iiliding of common sense. One wisiics that, after going so far, Jlr. Mackail had gone further, and had not undertaken, among so many apparently personal utterances, to indicate sonnets which ho detected by the subjective test of "sincerity" to bo roaily so. Ho does this, however, and notably in tho ease of Sonnet lxxxi, where the poet predicts that his verso shall survivo to eternise tho memory of tho person to whom it was addressed. "The promise of immortality which ho gives," says Mr. Mackail, "is too splendid to be insincere; it is no mero llourish of rhetoric, but the authentic and inspired voico of poetry." Now it may lie argued thnt for all their lyrical appearance the Sonnets are not only dramatic hut as dramatic as tho plays themselves, so that it is as hazardous to detect the real Shakespeare in -this or that sonnet' as to detect him in this or that passage of "Hamlet" or "The Tempest." And especially are the sonnets of tho "exegi monumentum" sort likely to be conventional. Many of the sonneteers of Shakespeare's time made such protestations. Spenser did, and so did Drayton and Daniel; they were almost do rigueur in the writer of a sonnet sequence. It is a consistent conception of Shakespeare thnt. he was supremely indifferent to posthumous fame, and his carelessness as to tho fate of his works, and not least of hi 3 Sonnets, once he had thrown them off, confirms it.

Tho truth is, the desire for posthumous fame • is somewhat a rare and exotic growth. When- one comes to examino the motives which may impel to it, it turns s out to Ire different, almost in kind, from what it so closely resembles— lovo of contemporary fame. Apart altogether from the cash-box aspect of tho latter, a writer mav desire popularity because it confirms linn in his favourable estimate of his own powers. Somo writers require 110 such confirmation, and are already so convinced of themselves thnt they can continue to turn out work for a lifetime in which the public takes no interest. But there arc men of equal genius but of a softer fibre who aro capable of by : force of hostile criticism, shaken in their belief in themselves and silenced, and who are like that farmer's son of whom Tennyson speaks, who. although in excellent health, took to bed because his friends had conspired to convince him that he looked as if ho were at death's door. A'ery different, is tho caso of thoso for whom popularity is merely recognition. They know themselves not to be average men, and they wish to bo known to others just for what they are. Not to be recognised is to be misunderstood, and to them popularity is /acceptable for the same reasons as, Luther says, faith is acceptable to God, "It gives Him His due." . Finally, there is the motive of vanity, a motive that often goes along with genuine strength. If it is not unimpeaeliablo ethically, it is at least human nature that 0110 should take pleasure in being favourably talked about and in inhaling an incense which encourages one in kindly thoughts concerning oneself. On the other hand, when one seeks for the reasons that actuate towards a posthumous fame, they seem to belong to a different class. It. is just conceivable that a poet—although the. motive is beyond tho average man—should wish for the survival of his'work in order to perpetuate the admiration of one _whom lie has himself admired. More'intelligible is Hazlitt's explanation that writers address posterity in order that succeeding generations may. derive from their work sucli pleasure as they themselves have derived from that of their predecessors. On the!whole, however, perhaps tho longing will bo found to exist in most cases in those writers who appeal to a limited circle of readers. In such cases it is not admiration the writer wishes but comprehension and sympathy, and although, as the moralists insist, his desire for a subjective immortality implies a sub-conscious belief in an objective immortality, it soothes liim to think that each generation will yield him sympathisers.—"Manchester Guardian."